N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment

Applying Structured Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment

(DRAOR) with Parolees

NZPS Queenstown2011

Nick J Wilson, PhD Psychological Research

Psychological Services, RRS

Previous research in the area

Bulk of literature indicates detecting fluctuations in individual risk using dynamic risk factors is vital to targeting and preventing failure.

Last decade a body of research has found moderate to high levels of accuracy for dynamic measures.

Unfortunately many involve single applications typically prior to release (treating them like static factors).

This does not assess coping attempts by the individual to stressors

Hanson et al (2007) an attempt to train PO’s to assess risk using dynamic risk factors (AUC = .70) but this was retrospective in design and PO’s highly trained, performance checked- not a naturalistic context!

How accurate are PO’s in predicting dynamic risk?

Natalie J. Jones, Shelley L. Brown and Edward Zamble (2010) Assessment of Dynamic Risk Predicting Criminal Recidivism in Adult Male Offenders : Researcher Versus Parole. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2010 37: 860

127 male offenders under community supervision Assessed by PO’s & researchers, three intervals- 1, 3, and 6 months Moderate to high levels of predictive accuracy in both research-based

and parole officer ratings AUC = .79 and .76, respectively Parole officers were limited to crude proxy measures of dynamic risk

constructs, no quality control measures yet moderate-high accuracy Time-dependent dynamic factors produced better results than time-

invariant models- multiple reassessments are better than single (AUC .70 vs .79).

The fact that both researchers and parole officers achieved similarly high levels of predictive accuracy suggests that the complex and exhaustive protocols adopted by the research team may not be necessary!

Manitoba Probation Study Do Probation Officers follow

RNR?

a) Is level of intervention proportional to risk?

b) Does supervision target criminogenic needs?

c) Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive behavioural techniques?

d) Small study 62 PO’s and 154 offenders- 211 audiotapes

(Bonta et al., 2008)

Targeting Criminogenic Needs & Recidivism Discussing criminogenic needs were related to

reduced recidivism

More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism

Length of Discussion Recidivism (%)

Low (0-15 minutes) 59.8

Medium (20-30 minutes)

47.6

High (40+ minutes) 20.3

Manitoba Case Management Study: Major Findings

1) Modest adherence to Risk Principle

2) Identified criminogenic needs were not discussed in the majority of cases (Need Principle)

Little attention to issues of antisocial peers and antisocial beliefs

3) Relationship and cognitive-behavioural skills used inconsistently (Responsivity Principle)

More focus on superficial engagement little behaviour challenge

DRAOR-NZDynamic Risk Assessment for

Offender Re-entry (Serin, Mailloux & Wilson 2010)

A Balanced Approach

DRAOR Scale composition

3 specific domains: Stable risk indicators Acute risk indicators Protective factors

Consider: static risk estimates the likelihood of re-offending whereas dynamic risk estimates indicate whenwhen that person might re-offend.

Protective factors inform crime desistance

Factors considered in DRAOR

Stable Acute Protective

Peer associations Substance abuse Responsive to advice

Attitude to authority Anger/hostility Prosocial identity

Impulse Control Opportunity/access to victims

High expectations

Problem-solving Negative mood Cost/Benefit

Sense of entitlement Employment Social support

Attachment with others Interpersonal relationships

Living situation Social control

Protective factors

Protective factors are factors that may mitigatemitigate or reduce the probability of engaging in offending.

They consist of internal assetsinternal assets and external external strengthsstrengths.

These factors are not simply the inverse of the risk factor but rather positive attributes that shield the individual from the risks.

These factors are likely context-specificcontext-specific and quite dynamic in nature.

The more protective factors there are, the greater the likelihood that an offender will be resilient to presented risks.

Offender re-entry

An offender’s parole from prison to the community represents a crucial phase in the offence/ desistance process

Desistance, is considered to occur when: “internal and external variables align in such a way that an offender with a history of multiple offences ceases all criminal activity” (Serin & Lloyd, 2009)

Scoring of protocol

At the end of each face-to-face interview or supervision session the Probation Officer completes the protocol.

The initial session provides a baseline. Higher scores are indicative of concern and may

warrant an increase in community risk management strategies.

For each subsequent session, assess acute factors (revisit the others as new information emerges or you doubt reliability).

Rating system 3-point scoring format (0, 1, 2). Score of 1 indicates a slight or possible

problem/asset or you are unsure due to mixed evidence

Can omit in some cases- but no prorating of scores

For protective items high score switch with high scores being assets and greater ‘armour’ against future reoffending

STABLE RISK INDICATORSCharacteristics associated with risk and capable of changing over months or years.

INDICATOR SCORING CRITERIA SCORE (omit if unknown)

Peer Associations Has only prosocial peers (0) – Has only antisocial peers (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite problem

Attitudes Towards Authority Prosocial attitudes (0) –Antagonistic attitudes (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite problem

Self-Regulation Autonomous/self monitoring (0) –Highly impulsive (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite problem

Problem-Solving Ability to make good decisions (0) –No consideration of consequences (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite problem

Sense of Entitlement Recognition of their limitations (0) -Inflated sense of self worth (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite problem

Attachment with Others Connected/concerned about others (0)- Callous/indifferent towards others (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite problem

Total STABLE Risk / 12

ACUTE RISK INDICATORSCharacteristics associated with risk and capable of changing in the short term (<1 month).


Substance Abuse Maintaining sobriety/social use (0) –Problematic substance abuse (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Anger/Hostility Absence of anger/hostility (0) –Marked presence of anger/hostility (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Opportunity/Access to Victims

Avoidance of preferred victims (0) – Access to preferred victims (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Negative Mood No evidence of depression/anxiety (0) –Marked presence of depression/anxiety (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Employment Maintaining a job (0) –Unemployed (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Interpersonal Relationships In a stable healthy relationship (0) –Conflicted relationship (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Living Situation Stable and positive living situation (0) – Instability/Lack of accommodations (2)

0Not a

problem

1Slight/Possible

problem

2Definite

problem

Total ACUTE Risk / 14

PROTECTIVE FACTORSCharacteristics that may buffer risk.


Responsive to Advice

Follows direction from prosocial peers, partners, supervisor, etc..

0Not anasset

1Slight/Possible

asset

2Definite asset

Prosocial Identity Legitimately views self as no longer criminally oriented with behavioural examples.

0Not anasset

1Slight/Possible

asset

2Definite asset

High Expectations Individual, family, and/or community have high expectations of success.

0Not anasset

1Slight/Possible

asset

2Definite asset

Costs/Benefits Evidence that rewards of prosocial behaviour outweigh those of procriminal behaviour.

0Not anasset

1Slight/Possible

asset

2Definite asset

Social Support Evidence that meaningful and accessible prosocial supports exist.

0Not anasset

1Slight/Possible

asset

2Definite asset

Social Control Conformity and compliance with prosocial others; Strong internalized connection/bonds.

0Not anasset

1Slight/Possible

asset

2Definite asset

Total PROTECTIVE / 12

Risk Scenarios

Most likely scenario; this can also be considered a repeat or same offending scenario,

Worst case scenario; this can be considered as a serious harm scenarios, Nature: What kind of offending is most likely to occur?

Who will be the likely victim(s), motivation and offence antecedents

Severity: What would be the likely or potential harm to victim(s)

Imminence: How soon might the offending occur? Are there any warning signs that may indicate that the risk is increasing or is imminent?

Frequency and/or duration: How often might the offending occur (e.g., once, a few times, several times or more)

Likelihood: How frequent or common is this type of offending, what is the base rate?

What needs to be in a risk scenario- Six guide questions

Related to an offence which is described

Who would be the victim(s)- age, gender, relationship etc

What would be the impact on victim(s)Aggravating features identifiedSituational/Environment risk factorsProtective factors- current or future

Example Peter- Stable

Peer Associations 1 Slight/Possible problem

Attitudes Towards Authority 2 Definite Problem

Impulse Control 2 Definite Problem

Problem Solving 2 Definite Problem

Sense of Entitlement 2 Definite Problem

Attachment with Others 2 Definite Problem

Stable Risk Factor Total 11/12

Peter- Acute

Acute Risk Factor

Substance Abuse 1 Slight/Possible problem

Anger/Hostility 2 Definite problem

Opportunity/Access to Victims 2 Definite problem

Negative Mood 1 Slight/Possible problem

Employment 2 Definite problem

Interpersonal Relationships 2 Definite problem

Living Situation 1 Slight/Possible problem

Acute Risk Factor Total 11/14

Peter- Protective

Protective Factor

Responsive to Advice 0 Not an asset

Prosocial Identity 1 Slight/Possible asset

High Expectations 0 Not an asset

Costs/Benefits 0 Not an asset

Social Support 1 Slight/Possible asset

Social Control 0 Not an asset

Protective Factor Total 2/12

Peter’s Most Serious Risk Scenario Related to an offence which is described

Assault on Rachel, manual but could include weapon if so likely knife, could be aggravated wounding under select conditions (infidelity, abandonment)

Who would be the victim(s)- age, gender, relationship etcPartner-Rachel, 23yrs, isolated from family, female, intimate conflicted relationship

What would be the impact on victimsBruising, possible wounds, possible trauma to child if they see assault

Aggravating features identifiedPoor ability to manage anger, pattern of past use of anger/violence to control women, substance abuse, weapons, antisocial associates

Situational/Environment risk factorsBanned from living with partner, facing charges, uncertain about his future, partner possible losing her residence

Protective factorsPotential- Rachel has a safety planParents- Want to help but fearful of him,Wants to be in a relationship and to be a father

Concern over possible reoffending before next contact- rate 1-6

“Not concerned” – The Probation Officer believes that the parolee has no current acute risk, indicates current low risk

“Possible concern” – The Probation Officer believes that the parolee has a significant acute risk factor or number of acute risk factors that supports a moderate risk of reoffending

“Concerned” – The Probation Officer believes that there are a higher level of acute factors linked to previous offending

that supports a high or very risk of reoffending

Keep in mind the likely risk reoffending and most serious from risk scenario formulation- watch base rates

Harm Scale (Offence Impact)

In regards of higher harm ratings these would be based on risk scenarios that involve serious physical injury/trauma or death (this would include offending such as rape)

Mid range ratings on the likelihood of a risk scenarios causing moderate physical harm (bruising or injuries that would not require hospitalisation for 48 hours or more) or general harm to unspecified victims in the community (reckless behaviour offences)

Low range ratings on the likelihood of a risk scenarios causing loss of assets or property damage not associated with direct harm to others or scenarios involving crimes of disorder, failures to comply etc.

CHCH Pilot 2008-09 (N =58) The DRAOR initial pilot was found to have a

normal distribution for scores for all three subscales, Stable, Acute, and Protective.

DRAOR sub scale score range was also found to change over the course of probation contact.

The moderate correlations between the RoC*RoI and DRAOR scores were all a direction that supported the relationship between static risk of reoffending and higher Stable and Acute subscale scores.

It was confirmed in the study results that the protective factors were not positively correlated with either static or dynamic risk variables.

Predictive Validity

Comparison of those recalled or reconvicted (reoffending) and crime desistance groups (non-recidivist) revealed that Older offender age, Lower acute risk and Higher scores on the DRAOR Protective scale

were significant predictors of parole success. This significance was across probation contact

time, both at initial DRAOR ratings and at the last or most recent rating.

DRAOR Expansion Research-PRT’s Funding received to apply DRAOR with six Prison

Release Teams (PRTS) across NZ 35 Probation staff, trained in measure, applied

across parolees from beginning Nov 2009, data gathered until end June 2010. Reoffending data collected until mid August 2010.

Total of 283 offenders had at least one DRAOR administered, 181, two administered, 125, three admin, 99 four admin (max number 14 admin)

Gender Males- 257, Females- 26 Static risk- RoC*RoI M = .46, SD = .24, normal dist Age- M = 36; SD = 11.27 range 18-77 yrs Ethnicity: Maori 54.4%; European 26.6%; PI

13.9%; Other 5.1% (Asian/Indian)

DRAOR Reliability (N = 283)

Stable scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .78, Good inter-rater reliability, .87

Acute scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .73, Good inter-rater reliability, .81

Protective scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .79, Good inter-rater reliability, .87

Correlations between offender age, static risk, and initial scores on DRAOR dynamic risk and protective factors

Variables Age RoC*RoI Stable Acute Protective

Age 1.00 --- --- --- ---

RoC*RoI -0.37** 1.00 --- --- ---

Stable -0.085 0.27** 1.00 --- ---

Acute -0.046 0.24** 0.67** 1.00 ---

Protective -0.081 -0.24** -0.67** -0.56** 1.00

** p < .01

Detected reoffending by sample

Mean follow-up 170 days (SD = 101)

Any new offence, includes breach of conditions- 42% (n = 119)

Any violence offence, 9.5% (n = 27)Any reimprisonment, 11.7% (n =

33)

Discriminant Functional Analysis- Any Reoffending

Structure Matrix

Function

RoC*RoI .752

Stable .675

Age -.558

Protective -.537

Acute .526

Variables Entered/Removed

Step

Wilks' Lambda

Exact F

Entered Statistic Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

1 RoC*RoI .882 37.46 1 280 .000

2 Stable .831 28.40 2 279 .000

3 Age .814 21.11 3 278 .000

Discriminant Functional Analysis- Any Reimprisonment

Structure Matrix

Function

1

Acute 1.000

Stable .661

Protective -.560

RoC*RoI .246

Age .028

Variables Entered/Removed

StepEntere

d

Wilks' Lambda

Statistic df1 df2 df3

Exact F

Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

1 Acute 0.937 1 1 176 11.91 1 176 0.001

Repeat DRAOR Stable scrs and any reoffending

Area Under the Curve

Test Result Variable(s) Area

Std. Error

Asymptotic Sig.b

Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Stable 1 .695 .062 .002 .574 .816

Stable 2 .755 .055 .000 .647 .863

Stable 3 .783 .055 .000 .676 .890

Stable 4 .787 .051 .000 .686 .887

Repeat DRAOR Acute scrs and reimprisonment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1stQtr

3rdQtr

EastWestNorth



Std. Error

Asymptotic Sig.b


Lower Bound Upper Bound

Acute 1 .772 .071 .004 .634 .911

Acute 2 .756 .055 .007 .648 .864

Acute 3 .780 .053 .003 .677 .883

Repeat DRAOR Protective scrs and any reoffending



Std. Error

Asymptotic Sig.


Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Protective1

.656 .052 .003 .555 .757

Protective2

.643 .050 .007 .545 .741

Protective3

.625 .051 .019 .526 .725

Survival Analysis- Any Reoffending by DRAOR Stable Score Group

Future Focus- Evidence Directed Intervention

Keystone Model

Intervention/monitoring Target Selection Using DRAOR scenarios

Background

DRAOR provides information on 19 items, 13 relating to possible Stable and Acute risk and 6 to potential assets

The two scenario options, likely and serious provide information on the relevance in the ‘story’ of potential reoffending

Reality check for the checklist (DRAOR)! Keystone model provides reflective risk reasoning (the

three R’s) keystone issue is usually peripheral or antecedent to

reoffending

Creating a risk reasoning ‘web’ The risk scenario provides the risk context story You then need to create a conceptual map or web of

the relationships between the risk and individual factors to ID the priority offender problem

What risk issue has the most number of relevant connections

Use: Logic, functional link? Relevance to the offending ‘end game’ Understanding of criminal motivation and

pathways Cultural link?

Uncertain

about

future

Victim likely be partner

Will use knife if threatened

Substance

abuse-

binging?

Wants to be dad and have family

????

Poor ability manage anger

Pattern of bullying women

Concern over relationship ending

Connections for Peter’s keystone arch and assault on Rachel

Background to focus on values/goals

Part of developing a commitment for change Counter negative expectancies about the future Enhance self efficacy Provides suitable goals that direct behaviour that is

concrete and realistic Answers important change questions

1. What will it be like if I change? 2. How will I be better off if I change? 3. Can I change? 4. What will it cost to change

Motivational- Helps overcome barriers to change- makes small and simple demands, uses self generated goals, helps to record progress, provides freq positive reinforcers, requires prior committment

Assessment of valued directions- Use of worksheet

Family (other than marriage or parenting): How do you want to interact with your family members? What type of sister or brother do you want to be? What type of son or daughter do you want to be?

How important is this area to you?0 = not at all important 1 = moderately important 2 = very important

Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality and depth of your experience in this area of life? 0 = not at all satisfied 1 = moderately satisfied 2 = very satisfied

How often have you done something to move you forward in this area during the last week?0 = no action 1 = once or twice 2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times

Intention:

Barriers:

“John Example”

Used Valued Directions Form The following example based on ‘John’ (not

his real name) a high risk (RoC*RoI .89) and high need violent offender recently released after serving a five year sentence of imprisonment.

He was assessed with the valued directions form when he had been back in the community for one month.

Family (other than marriage or parenting): How do you want to interact with your family or whanau members? What type of sister or brother do you want to be? What type of son or daughter do you want to be? John reported that he has a younger brother and sister but had little contact with most of his family for some years. His parents who he said were violent and abusive died some years ago, John said that prior to their death he was able to reconcile with them both. However, he does have contact with his aunt and uncle who live near his home marae and he had intended to live near them after release but the address was not approved. John has also retained links to his home marae and has a history of effective engagement with interventions delivered from Maori organisations.

How important is this area to you? 0 = not at all important 1 = moderately important 2 = very importantOverall, how satisfied are you with the quality and depth of your experience in this area of life? 0 = not at all satisfied 1 = moderately satisfied 2 = very satisfiedHow often have you done something to move you forward in this area during the last week or since last reporting? 0 = no action 1 = once or twice 2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times

Intention: To keep in touch with my Aunt and Uncle by phone and to re-engage with my younger brother and sister

Barriers:?????

Parenting: What type of parent do you want to be? How do you want to interact with your children?

John has a 7 year old son with whom he has not had contact since the boy was 2. He has consistently wanted contact and grieves for not being in his son’s life but says his son would not know him now but hopes that in the future he can build a relationship. John is excited about a possible parenting role with his new partners 2 year old son, sees this as a another chance to be a dad. He is determined to not be like his father was to him and for children he parents to feel safe and supported.

Importance: 0 = not at all important 1 = moderately important 2 = very important

Satisfaction: 0 = not at all satisfied 1 = moderately satisfied 2 = very satisfied

Actions (last week/reporting): 0 = no action 1 = once or twice2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times

Intention: To have frequent contact with his partners boy and to play with him and help with his care

Barriers: ????

LIFE COMPASS- ‘John’

2Just started new

relationship with ‘Mary’Excited about parenting partners 2 year old boy. Second chance

32

3

10

No/little contact immediate family, some contact extended whanau

One close friend prohibited contact, gang loyalty impt

10

2 3

Aging, watching weight wants to weight train, needs training partner

Past affiliation with Pentecostal Church,

sees self as Christian

0 0

Volunteered for his local Marae in past Ngati Whatua

1

0

2 1

Physical, immediate reward, own business

0 0

Doesn’t like classroom learning, hands on

Limited, likes league /gang connections

1

1

Integrity challenges

Health & Medicine

N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment